Only caught hearsay of this and the link is out there. From the attached link I could not find the new results. Anyone else have more clarity?
A redacted study?
- Thread starter MilwaukeeBoilerFan
- Start date
Only caught hearsay of this and the link is out there. From the attached link I could not find the new results. Anyone else have more clarity?
Kiss my ass. Read what the link says.
https://247sports.com/college/ohio-...dy-b10-cited-has-now-been-redacted-150709860/
Last edited:
Poor baby, for someone who throws as much shade as you do on this board you sure are awfully thin skinned.
Unlike you, because I am intellectually curious and know how to use Google, I actually pulled up the article. Surprise, Surprise, more disinformation from MilwaukeeBoilerFan. All you had to do is read the editor's note, which is less than a paragraph. Link below. The key take away "A rigorous review has confirmed that the findings as originally reported remain valid." Let me repeat REMAIN VALID. If you are going to grind your ax about disinformation and caste aspersions on people and play the holier than thou card you so frequently do, you might want to actually practice what you preach. I am going to bet you are now going to trot out the Donald Trump defense of I have no clue if it is true, I just re-tweeted it because I thought it was interesting. Yes, the article was retracted which is customary if a scholarly article is being corrected, but the corrected article came to the exact same conclusion. Ergo, more misinformation from MilwaukeeBoilerFan. Are you sure you are not a Russian bot? Please do not poison my tea like you did to Mr. Navalny
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2770025
Last edited:
Thank you for acknowledging redacted. You are the one who cast many more stones and name calling than other posters on here. I don't mind having back and forth banter, but when you call me or others stupid in dishing it out, then you better well be ready to take it.
So your defense is that the title of a post on a sports message board also used the wrong word? That pretty much lays waste to your claims of being intellectually curious. Let's consult the dictionary: Redacted-to remove words or information from a text before it is printed or made available to the public; Retracted-to take back, withdraw or disavow.
The article was retracted not redacted. Yes, because I admit when I am wrong, you are correct I inadvertently typed redacted when I meant retracted but have corrected it, because I understand the correct use. Thank you for pointing out my error. As you will see from my posting of the definitions, redacted is wrong. You redact a document to obfuscate information. You retract a document to signal it is no longer valid or to be relied on. Ergo, your title is still wrong. Plus, nice effort trying to pick a fight around the word instead of addressing the more material fact that you again have posted information that is not accurate.
Defense = using the title of published article does NOT mean anything close to stupid. There was more to that article. I did read what was posted, but could not readily find the full report.
Dude, your are digging your hole deeper. If you would just admit you were wrong, you would get a lot more respect. You did not rely on the title of the article. The title of the article is "Errors in Statistical Numbers and Data in Study of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From COVID-19". Nowhere does the article title use "redacted". You relied on a URL from a message board for OSU athletics. Plus redacted and retracted are words in common usage.
Not sure how you could not find it, I googled the title of the article in the tweet and it was the first result in google. You also could have found it by just going to Jama Cardiology which is also prominently shown as the relevant journal in the tweet. The article is literally on the front page of the website. Stop the Donald Trump defense of I have no responsibility for the accuracy of what I post. This is not the first time you have gotten caught posting information that even cursory investigation would show to be inaccurate. You have a view point. I may not agree with it, but I acknowledge that there is data supporting your position. Yes, I evaluate the totality of the evidence differently than you, but I do not think people who hold the alternate viewpoint are out to get me or evil or whatever else you want to claim. Where I do have an issue and why I have gone after you is because you are posting data that is readily identifiable as not accurate. You can bury your head in the sand all you want but people are dying from Covid-19. You should have enough humanity to not post inaccurate information that may cause other people harm just so you can try and win a silly argument on a message board.
I have a sense you don't care about this, but there's more to the findings/corrections.
The interesting features on the scans in Covid survivors are real, but they are caused by the risk factors, not by the covid," he tweeted.
High-sensitivity troponin T and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as markers of cardiac injury and inflammation, respectively, were both significantly higher in the COVID-recovered patients than controls but still within the normal range.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88263
Because I'm .... "intellectually curious".
I'm not the greatest at spelling, however, you're terrible with you are in a sentence structure.
Since I'm under your skin, I'm pointing out that via the CDC Death Counts for COVID-19, the virus is lessening in severity. You cannot deny that.
Yes, it surged upon re-opening. People went back to putting masks back on, kept disinfectanting hands and cleaning them, maintained social distancing when and where they could, and not only are the overall deaths down, but so are the cases (at least in Wisconsin). Look at all age groups.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex
You may be curious but you have fairly limited reading comprehension skills and debate skills.
First, you cite an opinion piece written by a journalist not an academic, which is very thinly sourced and relies in significant part of the text of a single tweet of a doctor who the author did not even interview.
Second, the quote you are referencing is from a tweet of a single doctor not a peer reviewed study which found a counter indication. That is hardly definitive proof that the corrected paper does not support the conclusion of its authors; the doctor you quote from provides no contrary evidence to support his position. It is merely his interpretation of the data. What's that old quote, "Figures lie and liars figure".
Third, you present the article as being unequivocally supportive of your position, but you conveniently omit the fact that article quotes a second doctor, namely Behnood Bikdeli, MD, of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard in Boston, who said "How COVID-19 affects the heart long-term is a "very relevant" clinical question" after reviewing the corrected study. But, by all means just ignore the doctor with the different view point about what the study shows. A hallmark of curiosity is pretending data that does not support your position does not exist.
Fourth, the doctor whose quote you are cherry picking does not even support the argument you are trying to make. You conveniently omit the conclusion of his analysis which makes a very different point than what you are trying to suggest it makes. Specifically, he noted that the study supports it being possible to have "a good recovery from even rather nasty Covid". That is entirely different from saying the underlying issue does not exist. He is acknowledging that Covid-19 causes heart issues in certain individuals but that with appropriate treatment like the subjects of the study received it is unlikely to cause long term issues. He does not say heart problems do not exist or that they do not merit treatment. He does not say that the studies subjects were inaccurately diagnosed or made up. He is specifically saying that when treated appropriately the revised data does not suggest there is long term damage, which while certainly relevant is a far cry from how you are trying to spin the article.
Lastly, I am not sure why you and others continue to believe it is some sort of trump card to point out that certain effects of Covid-19 are more prevalent in people with certain underlying conditions like it is some unique feature of Covid-19. People who are obese or smoke are more likely to have heart attacks. Based on the obvious extension of your argument, we should not be worried about heart attacks because they are likely only to occur in people with certain conditions. Last time I checked, there was nobody who was just a heart muscle. Your health is a totality of factors.
I was correct: you don't care.
What's more, you're being too caustic and trying too hard.
You're trying to make assertions and conclusions where they don't exist. You don't like "figures", but it's the "figures" that lead to conclusions.
The data doesn't support what you so desperately want to be true.
It is widely recognized, COVID amplifies mortality with comorbidity. That pesky little fact will just not go away, no matter how you much you belittle people as you meander down the path of your pre-determined outcome.
Shouldn't you be practicing your law skills in court or working on a case vs. using jabbing at us with all your lackluster KIA debate skills? In your view, you likely believe you have the sweet smell of confidence, but the reality is it is an awful stench of arrogance all the way to here in Wisconsin!
Please enlighten me about my errors in sentence structure. This ought to be most entertaining. Are you having issues with the use of commas to separate subordinate clauses from main clauses? My use of semicolons to separate related but distinct sentences? The use of em dashes to flag an aside? Please, I am curious to have my writing skills critiqued by someone of your obvious skill.
I was quite unaware that Messrs. Strunk and White had come back from the dead to participate in the discourse on this message board--the fact that you almost certainly have no clue what that is a reference to should be proof enough that you are on far from solid ground. I am extremely well compensated in my professional life because people who have the relevant academic credentials to make such evaluation agree my writing and analytical skills are well above average for my profession, which has as its main criteria an ability to write well; as such, excuse me if I disregard your critique in favor of people who actually know what they are talking about.
Yes, if by correct you mean the article you cite (a) does not support the position you are articulating and (b) specifically cites a contradictory view point that you pretend is not in the article, you are by all means correct.
Second, you do realize the point you make in the last paragraph is exactly the same point I made in the last paragraph of my post that you are saying is wrong. By operation of the transitive property, if it is wrong when I assert the position, the position is also wrong when you assert it. So, yes, you have clearly established your superior intellect by adopting an argument that necessarily invalidates your own argument. I bow to your intellectually superiority.
Tell me I am wrong, your career maxed out at lower middle management, and you think it was because all the other smarter more sophisticated parties who got promoted stole your ideas or did not understand your brilliance? The fact that you note in your location that you are a beta tells me all I need to know about you. You get on here and pretend to be a tough guy, because at home your wife wears the pants.
It supported "my position" quite well.
I'm not pretending to be anything. Your posts grow more and more unhinged as the thread progresses.
Not a good look.
The fact that you think a person can only do one thing at a time is quaint. If my skills are so lackluster, why have you not actually articulated a single cogent defense of your position? Why have I been able to push your buttons so easily?
Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but I freely admit I am arrogant. One of your hero's most well known quotes is particularly à propos, specifically "show me someone without an ego, and I will show you a looser."
Sure, whatever, Chief. Just because you assert something to be true does not make it so. Thanks for confirming I pegged (pun intended) your status in life with my prior post.
You’re going down a funnel with your debate. Calling people Chief, Buddy, and Looser (misspelled) drags your argument to a halt. Articulate it better please.
Loser. Spell check please.
Also, believe it is Vince Lombardi, “Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a loser”.
At least you have some moxy, and don’t give up.
Yup, you got me. A single typo in a quote that I copied and pasted to make sure I did not misquote the speaker is clear evidence of your superior intellect. Not a defense, I should have noticed the typo; however, a single typo is the best you can come up with? I know how to spell à propos, but you think I do not know how to spell loser. Yeah, that is not a non sequitur.
Of course, you have at least two purported sentences in this thread that lack a subject and a verb, which a first grader would know are required for a grammatically correct sentence. You have another sentence that uses a comma prior to a conjunction, which requires a full sentence after the conjunction to be grammatically correct but is not followed by a complete sentence. I am sure I could write a lesson plan for second graders with the grammar errors that I can find in your posts; however, a single typo is what you are hanging your hat on. I bet you are a hit at the staff meetings at Walmart. Keep working hard and you just might be able to buy a double wide some day.
Speaking of incomplete sentences, please advise me what the subject is in the sentence "Articulate it better please." That sounds like something one would hear in a remake of Deliverance.
Additionally, please advise me what the pronoun "it" refers to in such sentence. I sense you are unfamiliar with appropriate use of pronouns. Was this not covered in your GED program?
Your inability to articulate even a remotely coherent defense or use complete sentences while focusing on a single typo in my post is rather sad; however, I suspect that is an apt adjective to describe your life.
The fact you are resorting to just parroting Purdue85's straw man as a retort is so unoriginal and uninspired. With the incredible ability you have displayed for mangling the English language, I fully expected you to be much more proficient.
Lastly, when you are lying awake tonight trying to come up with a plucky comeback, please take a moment to note how adroitly I have pushed your buttons today. I have zero doubt I am inhabiting prime real estate in your mind tonight--not that there is much competition for the space. Not much fun is it when someone bigger and meaner than you comes to town is it. Perhaps you will keep that in mind when you belittle and attack others on this board going forward. You might just say someone was trying to help you learn a lesson about playing nice with others. Goodnight, Moon Pie.
You really do make this too easy. You cannot even formulate a good insult. You and Purdue85 have asserted the correctness of your argument and that I am failing to graciously accept what you believe is my defeat. That would definitionally be a poor loser. Ergo, your reference is not even consistent with your overarching argument.
A worthy opponent, a worthy opponent. My kingdom for a worthy opponent! Google it because I am sure you have no clue what famous work of literature I am paraphrasing for my own end. Please make sure the thermostat is set to 70 when you go to bed. I cannot fall asleep when it is hot and it is already quite depressing living inside your head. For real this time, Goodnight, Moon Pie.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Jacobsen to compete for spot on U18 USA National team- Latest: DwaynePurvis00
